Moulson wasnt a waiver pickup neither was McDonald. Not sure why media and diehard fans lump him in as a waiver pickup but hey whatever.

They were not WW pick ups but we gave up nothing to get them also, so i think that's where the confusion comes in. I see your point because it would be like saying "Boyes" was a WW pick up but both of these guys were depth signings opposed to real UFA signings. Just a thought.

I responded that the 15 goalies I believe to be better do not allow those to happen every game.

I'd be interested to see a list of quality chances against for each team, I'm not sure if there is an accurate stat on that though (I'd have to look).

Obviously if we had better defense we'd allow less goals, however, I don't believe it would prevent the soft one going in each game or every other game. It's just the type of goalie he is at this point. It would just lower the amount of goals in general.

I think it's quite clear that I don't mean literally every game, so waiving around three shutouts isn't going to win the debate we're having.

It's not a 3 on 2. Hickey and the 3rd player are not in the play at all, there is zero chance of that pass going to the 3rd player or being blocked by Hickey.

He 'has' the shooter in the beginning, but the pass happens at the top of the circles and the 'shooter' isn't looking to shoot at any point on his way in. The pass occurs and then Nabby decides it's a good idea to do some baseball slide and go way out of position (as he ends up outside the crease) when the distance he actually needed to travel was maybe a foot to his left or so.

It's the slide that takes him out of position, not the going down.

I have and I'll break it down for you.

The shooter is passing before he even reaches the top of the circle.

Frame two we can see the location of the where the pass was caught and the player. He's going to receive that puck at the hash marks.

And then in frame 3 we can see that the distance that was needed to be traveled by Nabby was minimal in order to becomes square to the shooter again.

Frame four is Nabby taking himself out of position with the shooter still quite far away from the crease.

Last frame, here is the 'move' from the shooter and Nabby's position when it occurs. As we can all see, it's more of a sidestep than a move. He's nowhere near being close to being in position. He's covering maybe, maybe a 1/4th of the net at this point.

It wasn't a play that was close to being a play or anything that hasn't happened to him a million times in his lifetime. He misplayed it, plain and simple. I'm not sure what he thought was going to happen or what was coming, but that play is just one of the many times that he has over thought or overplayed the puck and has taken himself out of position to make a save.

Would he have made it the save if he had stayed more square? Not sure. But the chances of him making a save increase exponentially if he had.

Again, he's a serviceable goalie and obviously has a nice resume, but there are 15 other goalies I'd rather have.

in a 30 team league, this is the definition of "hey, not bad." a goalie you can win with. chris osgood was "hey, not bad." grant fuhr, for all his accolades was "hey, not bad." if the team played better D in front of him, you'd see less to complain about. 15 or 16 out of 30 is really not too shabby.

in a 30 team league, this is the definition of "hey, not bad." a goalie you can win with. chris osgood was "hey, not bad." grant fuhr, for all his accolades was "hey, not bad." if the team played better D in front of him, you'd see less to complain about. 15 or 16 out of 30 is really not too shabby.

Nabby gives up softies, BUT he also stops shots that some goalies give up goals on. The positive outweighs the negative a lot in my opinion. I'm a big believer in Nabby. Been watching him since his rookie season (lived in Northern Calofornia from 1999-2006), and he's been great for a long time. I also think he's a good leader who always speaks his mind, great interview as well.